Posted on 09/26/2005 3:27:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins. But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.
If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.
"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and a leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
SNIP
Evolution's repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with "alternative" explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force.
SNIP
"What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions," Lander said. "You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But, how about: why do there have to be any implications?
What interpretation having to do with the Chimp genome would you be referring to?
He wants to make the T.O. article disappear, as it demolishes the "common design" wave-away to molecular confirmations of the tree of life. Thus it is "out of date" and "inaccurate" mumble mumble mumble mumble.
Let me see if I have this straight; lies, mistakes and errors are a moral and ethical guide?
When you say, "you must understand", isn't that imperative an absolutist type statement? It seems to imply that you have the inside scoop on the meaning of those things written those many thousands of years ago and that others are obliged to accept your opinion. Why?
What you characterize as "obvious errors" implies that scholastics throughout the ages and the rest of us who believe the accuracy and historicity of the Scripture in those things it addresses are benighted, ignorant bigots wearing blinders, incapable and or unwilling to see the truth right in front of our faces that a pack of lies, mistakes and obvious errors can serve as a moral and ethical guide.
You have invented a god in your mind, an idol, that can or cannot do certain things according to your own image. It is not the God of Creation, History and the Bible that I know.
Cordially,
Numbers without interpretation are just pebbles on the beach. If you have anything to say, feel free to say it.
The reason I, and others, rely on the information from t.o. has nothing to do with being PC or with t.o. being any sort of official arm of a cult. It has to do with the number and experience of the pure scientists that contribute to the t.o. archive and participate in the newsgroup, related blogs and websites. Any contributions to the archive are suggested on the newsgroup and approved or added to by active scientists who spend their professional life working in the many fields that make up evolution.
If you feel you are up to arguing with them, I suggest you take your questions to either the newsgroup 'talk.origins' or the Google group. I'm sure you will find more than a few capable of handling any of your doubts.
You might look up John Wilkins, John Harshman, R Norman, Richard Forrest, PZ Myers, Howard Hershey, Ron O, Mark Isaac (not a biologist), Richard Harter or a number of other Howlers that are less frequent posters but equally knowledgeable.
Now that I've mentioned some of the well qualified, and published, sources for the material in the t.o. archive, I suggest you consider the well qualified and knowledgeable poster here whose information is the same as what is found at t.o.. Perhaps if you compare the information disseminated here with that of t.o. you will see that the highly intelligent scientists here are equally well informed sources.
Does it alter the interpretation of any other evidence?
"Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins."
I thought liberals were human's closest cousins. Oh well, I guess a chimp is better than a liberal any day.
Should be
"I suggest you consider the well qualified and knowledgeable posters here "
You have no clue, nor do you understand either the t.o. tract or the recent chimp genome findings.
The narrowminded cloistered view on your part is astonishing.
Listen: nothing in my comments have anything to do with supporting or refuting "common design" (whatever that is). Nor does pointing out the biological inaccuracies of the t.o. tract in any way refute or even adress common descent.
tallhappy: Or for it for that matter.
But at least a lay person who argues for evolution is arguing on the side of the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Nonsense talk is nonsense talk.
Darwin was fixated on apes because he was one in his previous life, and due to his continued fixation he likely became one in his next life.
LOL - that would explain a lot!
He really DID have apes as not-so-distant relatives....
Human suit, ape mind.
So you are a sculpture. Your intent is to reveal yourself by slowly cutting away everything that isn't you. And we are stupid for not seeing the form hidden in the block. K001.
No. Your post earlier was great. Your comments on Darwin's leanings toward Lamarkian type thought and the disagreements between the early Darwinians who believed in blending vs the Mendelians was right on and something most people wouldn;t know. I only know it because I read a book about mendel.
I don't understand your post 178.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.